alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Raplee Realty Corp., Petitioner, against Robert C. Weaver, as State Rent Administrator, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

October 2, 1958.

*Greenbold i& Eckman*for petitioner.

*Nathan Heller*and *Sam L. Simon*for respondent.

Henry Epstein, J.

This is a petition to review the determination of the State Rent Administrator in denying the landlord’s protest of a downward revision of maximum rents. The subject premises had been an unheated tenement that was converted to central heating. An application was made to the Rent Commission for an increase in rent due to the installation of the heating plant. The application was granted in March, 1956. In October, 1957, the Local Rent Administrator notified the landlord that the proceedings, wherein the increase was granted, were being reopened because the landlord had obtained a tax abatement from the city to the extent of 75% of the cost of the improvement over a period of nine years (Administrative Code of City of New York, § J41-2.4) and this relief was not considered in the adjustment of the maximum rent. The landlord argues that the Rent Administrator has no right on its own to reopen a proceeding in which it has granted rent increases. The contention is unfounded (State Rent and Eviction Regulations, § 33). This court has considered this identical problem *(Matter of Semel*v. *Weaver,*17 Misc 2d 73) and resolved it in favor of the respondent. There is nothing in these papers that would warrant a different result. The application is denied and the proceeding is dismissed. Settle order.
H. J. Res. 88 

One Hundred Sixteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty 

Joint Resolution 

Providing for the appointment of Franklin D. Raines as a citizen regent of the 

Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution. 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That, in accordance with section 5581 of the Revised Statutes of the United States 

(20 U.S.C. 43), the vacancy on the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, in the class other than Members of Congress, 

occurring by reason of the expiration of the term of John W. 

McCarter Jr. of Illinois on March 21, 2020, is filled by the appointment of Franklin D. Raines of Washington, DC. The appointment 

is for a term of six years, beginning the date of the enactment 

of this joint resolution. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### Mizukami v. Mizukami

25928

01/04/2005

Affirmed
**EXHIBIT 23.1** **CONSENT    OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the    Registration Statement    No. 333-119300    on    Form S-8    pertaining to The Cato Corporation 2004 Incentive Compensation    Plan, in Registration Statement    No. 333-119299    pertaining to The Cato Corporation 2003 Employee Stock Purchase    Plan in Registration Statement    No. 333-96283    on    Form S-8    pertaining to The Cato Corporation 1999 Incentive Compensation    Plan, in Registration Statement    No. 33-41314    on    Form S-8    pertaining to The Cato Corporation 1987 Incentive Stock Option    Plan, in Registration Statement    No. 33-41315    on    Form S-8    pertaining to The Cato Corporation 1987 Nonqualified Stock    Option Plan, and in Registration Statements Nos.    33-69844 and    333-96285 on    Forms S-8    pertaining to The Cato Corporation 1993 Employee Stock Purchase    Plan, of our report dated April 3, 2007 relating to the    financial statements, financial statement schedule,    management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal    control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of    internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this    Form 10-K. /s/  PricewaterhouseCoopers    LLP     Charlotte, North Carolina    April 3, 2007
EXHIBIT 10.11



March 29, 2001


Mr. Stephen W. Haley
4065 Sunridge Road
Pebble Beach, CA 93953

Re:   Offer of Employment

Dear Mr. Haley:

Community West Bancshares is pleased to offer you the following employment
opportunity:

Position  Title:     Executive Vice President/Chief Operating Officer
Department:          Corporate Administration
Special  Note:       Attendance at all Board Meetings, except when Management
                     attendance is not requested
Direct  Report:      Mr.  Lew  Stone,  President,/CEO
Compensation:        $12,500.00  per  month
Auto  Allowance:     $500.00  per  month,  reimbursable via monthly expense
                     reimbursement
Stock Options:       20,000 shares of stock options, contingent upon Board of
                     Director  approval
Moving  Allowance:   $5,000.00  to  be  paid  upon  request
Living  Allowance:   $2,000.00  per month for six (6) months from date of hire
                     for temporary housing while relocating to Santa Barbara
                     area
Severance  Package:  If termination occurs (involuntary) within the first two
                     years of  employment, six (6) months salary will be paid to
                     the executive upon termination date
Start  Date:         May 21, 2001
401K  Plan:          Eligible to participate in the 401(k) Savings Plan after
                     successful completion of the 90-Day Introductory Period and
                     Open Enrollment (January 1st and July 1st).
Health  Benefits:    Eligible  for  Company  paid  executive  health  benefits
                     (employee  and  family)  upon the date of hire
Vacation:            Accruals of 13.33  hrs per month worked (4 weeks annually),
                     with vesting upon the successful completion of the 90-Day
                     Introductory  Period
Sick Leave:          Accruals of 5.33 hours per month worked to begin on the
                     first of  the  month following the successful completion of
                     the 90-Day Introductory Period.
Special Note:        The above offer is contingent upon the approval of the
                     Federal Reserve  Bank.  An Urgent Request will be made upon
                     submittal of application for approval.

Please be advised that this is not a contract of employment. As an employee of
Community West Bancshares, your employment is considered to be "at-will."


Please sign below as an acknowledgement of this offer and your status of an
at-will employee of Community West Bancshares.


Acknowledge and Agree                           Community West Bancshares


-----------------------------------             --------------------------
Stephen W. Haley                                Lew Stone, President & CEO
Date:  5/20/01                                  Date:   3/29/01


<PAGE>
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION




Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


(Section
1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Orsus Xelent Technologies, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with
the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Hua
Chen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:




(1)  The Report fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)  The information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.






Date:
      November 23, 2009
                          By:
                          /s/
      Hua ChenHua
      ChenChief
      Financial Officer


A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
44 P.3d 294

INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I

March 14, 2002

23473

#### State v. Long

Affirmed
#### PETTY INVESTMENT COMPANY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Melvin MILLER dba Miller Sales, and Jennings-Hanna Investment Company, a corporation, Defendants and Respondents.

No. 15186.

Supreme Court of Utah.

March 9, 1978.

*884Wayne G. Petty of Moyle & Draper, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and appellant.

Gaylen S. Young, Jr., Salt Lake City, for defendants and respondents.

MAUGHAN, Justice:

This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing plaintiff’s claim for attorney’s fees. The claim arises from services rendered by plaintiff’s attorney in seeking to have a lien declared invalid. We reverse and remand fqr the award of attorney’s fees. No costs awarded. All statutory references are to Utah Code Annotated, 1953.

Plaintiff, Petty Investment Company, brought an action in district court against Melvin Miller, doing business as Miller Sales. Petty claimed, (1) a lien recorded by Miller was invalid as against Petty, (2) Petty was entitled to damages pursuant to 38-1-24, for Miller’s failure to cancel the lien and (3) for reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 38-1-18. Miller counterclaimed, (1) asserting the validity of the lien and seeking to foreclose it. Other claims are immaterial here.

Petty moved for a partial summary judgment which was granted both as to his first claim, holding Miller’s lien invalid, and as to Miller’s first and second claims, each of which were dismissed with prejudice. The trial court denied the motion as to Petty’s second and third claims.

At trial, Petty asserted only its third claim, that for attorney’s fees. The court found Petty had incurred attorney’s fees in connection with his first claim, but dismissed the claim for those fees. Petty’s right to attorney’s fees is the sole issue on appeal.

38-1-18 provides:

> In any action brought to enforce any lien under this chapter the successful party shall be entitled to recover a reasonable attorney’s fee, to be fixed by the court, which shall be taxed as costs in the action.

Although plaintiff was the successful party in this action, this was not, initially, an action to enforce a lien such as referred to in the statute; but rather an action to have the lien declared invalid. Whether the statute would apply in this event alone we need not decide, for defendant’s counterclaim seeking to foreclose the lien clearly resulted in a controversy to which 38-1-18 does apply.1

ELLETT, C. J., and CROCKETT, WILKINS and HALL, JJ., concur.

1

. *Palombi v. D & C Builders,*22 Utah 2d 297, 452 P.2d 325 (1969).
November 13, 1998

21264

#### State v. Akuna

Affirmed
NO. SCPW-12-0000401
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

ARNA LAHELA JOHNSON and GERALYN LAPITAN CAMARILLO, individually and as co-trustees of the Camarillo-Johnson Trust, Petitioners,

vs. THE HONORABLE HILARY B. GANGNES, JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI # I; and BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Respondents.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (Civil No. 1RC 10-1-10634)

ORDER (By: Nakayama, Acting C.J., Acoba, Duffy, and McKenna, JJ. and Circuit Judge Chan, in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused)

Upon consideration of petitioners Arna Lahela Johnson and Geralyn Lapitan Camarillo's petition for a writ of mandamus and the papers in support, it appears that the April 5, 2012 order denying petitioners' post-judgment "motion to vacate orders" is a final order of the district court appealable pursuant to HRS § 641-1(a). Petitioners can obtain appellate review of the April 5, 2012 order and can seek a stay pending appeal of the execution of the writ of possession pursuant to HRAP Rule 8. Therefore, petitioners are not entitled to mandamus relief. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai # i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-12-0000401 04-MAY-2012 10:04 AM2

338 (1999) (A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action. Such writs are not intended to supersede the legal discretionary authority of the lower courts, nor are they intended to serve as legal remedies in lieu of normal appellate procedures). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, May 4, 2012. /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Derrick H.M. Chan
September 16, 1996

18751

#### State v. Lum

Affirmed
```

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 38 (Friday, February 26, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 9929]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04214]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Thirty-Ninth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee (224) Airport 
Security Access Control Systems

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of Thirty-Ninth RTCA Special Committee 224 Meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the 
Thirty-Ninth RTCA Special Committee 224 meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held March 10, 2016 from 10:00 a.m.-3:00 
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA Inc. Conference Room, 1150 
18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC, Tel: (202) 330-0680.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street 
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC, 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-
9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org or 
Karan Hofmann, Program Director, RTCA, Inc., khofmann@rtca.org, (202) 
330-0680.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is 
hereby given for a meeting of RTCA Special Committee 224. The agenda 
will include the following:

Tuesday, March 8, 2016

1. Welcome/Introductions/Administrative Remarks
2. Review/Approve Previous Meeting Summary
3. Report From the TSA
4. Report on Safe Skies on Document Distribution
5. Report on TSA Security Construction Guidelines Progress
6. Review of DO-230G Sections
7. Review of DO-230H Sections
8. Action Items for Next Meeting
9. Time and Place of Next Meeting
10. Any Other Business
11. Adjourn

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Plenary information will be 
provided upon request. Persons who wish to present statements or obtain 
information should contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may present a 
written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 23, 2016.
Latasha Robinson,
Management & Program Analyst, NextGen, Enterprise Support Services 
Division, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2016-04214 Filed 2-25-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
#### The STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Leo James SUIT and Clark Hastings, Defendants and Appellants.

No. 13833.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Sept. 18, 1975.

*518Leo James Suit and Clark Hastings, pro se.

Vernon B. Romney, Atty. Gen., William W. Barrett, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, for plaintiff-respondent.

TUCKETT, Justice:

The defendants Leo James Suit and Willard Clark Hastings and one Daniel Richard Wilbur were charged with the crime of burglary in Washington County, Utah. During the course of the proceedings Daniel Richard Wilbur was granted immunity and he testified for the State. The defendants were found guilty and sentenced to a term in the btah State Prison, and from the convictions and sentences they appeal to this court.

On January 17, 1974, at about 1:00 o’clock A.M., the defendants and Wilbur broke into a hardware and furniture store in Hurricane, Utah. The three men removed a number of firearms from the store. The three proceeded to the home of Clifford Foster in Washington, Utah, and one of the guns was left with Mr. Foster, and he in turn gave them $20. Suit and Wilbur then proceeded to the home of the defendant Suit’s brother in Las Vegas, Nevada, and the rest of the guns were left at that residence in his care.

The State’s case was built upon the testimony of Wilbur, who was an accomplice. The court fully instructed the jury as to how they should view the testimony of an accomplice and also instructed the jury that before a verdict of guilty could be returned, the testimony of the accomplice must be corroborated by other credible evidence which without the aid of the testimony of the accomplice tended to connect the defendants with the crime charged.

It is the main thrust of the defendants’ contentions in this court that there was insufficient evidence to corroborate the testimony of the accomplice, and their conviction should be reversed. The record discloses that there was evidence of the possession by the defendants of one of the guns a short time after the breaking and entering.1 There was also evidence that the stolen guns were left at the home of Suit’s brother as testified to by the accomplice. We conclude that the factors and other evidence of record sufficiently corroborated the testimony of the accomplice in the finding of the jury as to the guilt of the defendants.

We have examined the other assignments of error submitted by the defendants and we find no merit in those contentions.

The verdict and judgment of the court below are affirmed.

HENRIOD, C. J., and ELLETT, CROCKETT, and MAUGHAN, JJ., concur.

1

. *State v. Kirhman,*20 Utah 2d 44, 432 P.2d 638; *State v. Christian,*Utah, 533 P.2d 872.
#### In the Matter of Clara M. Baldini, Mother of Robert L. Bottieri, an Infant, for Leave to Change His Name to Robert L. Baldini.

City Court of the City of New York, Bronx County,

March 9, 1959.

*Norman J. Mordhofslcy*for Clara M. Baldini, mother.

*Sami Kies*for Anthony Bottieri, father.

Lawrence J. Peltin, J.

In this proceeding, an application is made in behalf of a four-year-old boy, by his mother, for leave to change the infant’s name to her maiden name, she having obtained an annulment from the father in this State on the grounds of fraud. The annulment decree provided that custody of the son be given to the mother and that the father pay $10 weekly for the support and maintenance of the infant. The mother contends: (1) that the father never supported the infant; (2) the father has never seen the child; (3) that it would obviate embarrassing explanations in that the child’s name and that of the mother were different. The father, who opposes the application, states that the mother has persistently refused to accept contributions for the support of the infant and has resisted any efforts on his part to see the child. Indeed there is evidence that the father opened a savings bank account in October, 1955, which is held in trust for the child. Moreover, the father professes love for his son and a willingness to support him and to visit with him. The father of the infant has a natural right to have his son bear his name unless the child’s best interests are adversely affected. Moreover the child should in due course know of his parentage and when he has attained a certain maturity in understanding the circumstances, may of his own volition choose a name differently from his birth. *(Smith*v. *United States Cas. Co.,*197 N. Y. 420.) “Until then the court will not and should not endeavor to interfere with the usual custom of succession to paternal surname nor foster any unnatural barrier between the father and son.” *(Matter of Epstein,*121 Misc. 151, 152; *Matter of Cohn,*181 Misc. 1021.)

The court is concerned only with the infant and as such cannot conceive how the best interests of the child will be substantially *196protected by the proposed change. The mother apparently has not remarried and has resumed the use of her maiden name. Greater embarrassment and hardship would result in the suspicion that the infant was born out of wedlock.

This application is therefore denied with leave to renew upon a change of circumstances affecting the welfare of the child.
EXHIBIT  99.1

                Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                    As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the
                          Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of AFG Investment Trust C (the "Trust"),
on  Form  10-Q  for the period ended March 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and  Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, the
Principal  Executive  Officer  of the Trust's Managing Trustee, hereby certifies
pursuant  to  18  U.S.C.  1350  as  adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002  that:
(1)     the Report of the Trust filed today fully complies with the requirements
of  Section  13(a)  or  15  (d)  of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934; and
(2)     the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects,  the  financial  condition  and  results  of  operations of the Trust.

                    /s/  Gary  D.  Engle
                    --------------------
                    Gary  D.  Engle
President  of  AFG  ASIT  Corporation,
 the  Managing  Trustee  of  the  Trust
(Principal  Executive  Officer)
                    November  19,  2002
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                      12,888,683
<SECURITIES>                                   141,231
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,795,478
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            15,775,996
<PP&E>                                      96,581,458
<DEPRECIATION>                            (40,893,591)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              78,378,132
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,541,089
<BONDS>                                     27,137,915
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  40,210,725
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                78,378,132
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,730,464
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,834,581
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,391,177
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,255,889
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,255,889
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,255,889
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>